About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 471
|
|
S v Zulu and Another (A919/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 471 (14 November 2013)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO. A919.2013
DATE:
14 NOVEMBER 2013
MAGISTRATE:
BETHAL HIGH COURT
REF
NO.: 1016
MAGISTRATE’S
SERIAL NO.: 18/13
MAGISTRATE’S
CASE NO.: 21/13
THE STATE
V
LINDOKUHLE ZULU
AND F A S
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
JANSEN AJ
1. This matter came
before us by way of a special review in terms of
section 304(4)
of
the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
from the Magistate’s
Court for the regional division of Mpumalanga held at Bethal. There
were two accused, namely a Lindokuhle
Zulu and a F A S Both pleaded
guilty to the following charge: - “theft of stock or produce
read with the provisions of section
1, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the Stock
Theft Act 57 of 1959 in that on or about 23 December, 2012 and at or
near Emzinani in the district
of Pongola, the accused did unlawfully
and intentionally steal stock or produce - namely a horse, the
property or in the lawful
possession of a Wille Masego".
2. Both accused were
found guilty on the charge on 11 October 2013.
3. However, when the
court resumed on 18 October 2013 for sentencing, it transpired that
accused number two, namely F A S, was only
17 years old.
4. This fact was
confirmed by accused number two’s mother and it also appeared
from his birth certificate. As a result, the
trials of accused
numbers one and two were separated and the Magistrate referred the
matter for a special review to a Judge of
the High Court, with the
request that the conviction be set aside in that the procedure
prescribed by the
Child Justice Act 75 of 2008
had not been followed,
due to the Magistrate being unaware of the fact that the accused was
a minor.
5. In the result,
the following order is made:
The conviction of
accused number two namely F A S on 11 October, 2013, on a charge of
theft of stock or produce read with the provisions
of section 1, 11,
12, 14 and 15 of the Stock Theft Act 57 of 1959 is hereby set aside,
in order for the proceedings to start ab
initio in terms of the Child
Justice Ac|?75 of 2008.
M.iyl. JANSEN
ACTING JUDGE IN
THE HIGH COURT
P.M. MABUSE
JUDGE IN THE HIGH
COURT